November 15, 2025
The Mystery of the Nine Ding (Tripods)
The Nine Ding represent a milestone marking China’s entry into the age of civilization. Lost for over 3,000 years, their potential return is a matter of global interest.
The Nine Ding were regarded as a symbol of royal authority. Consequently, although many bronze vessels emerged in ancient China, none could compare to the Nine Ding. Later, contending for political power was called “inquiring about the ding,” while establishing a regime was termed “settling the ding.”
The earliest mention of the Nine Ding appears in the <Zuo Zhuan>(Third Year of Duke Xuan, 606 BC). In the early years of the Xia Dynasty, the regional lords of the Nine Provinces were ordered to contribute bronze to cast the Nine Ding. The Ding symbolized the Nine Provinces and the unification of the realm under one rule. Thus, they became the treasured hereditary possessions of the Three Dynasties.
Regarding the Nine Ding, there are two concepts: the Xia Dynasty Nine Ding and the Zhou Dynasty Nine Ding.
Today, thanks to the years of effort by the major Hong Kong collector, Chairman Xiao, this rare treasure—the Zhou Dynasty Nine Ding—has finally returned to the world. This is truly a joyous and momentous event worthy of celebration.
The whereabouts of the Xia Dynasty Nine Ding remain unknown. Currently, the only evidence potentially related to the Xia Nine Ding is the Warring States period Gilt Jade Cup with Single Dragon and Attached Handles, presented by King Xian of Zhou for longevity, which will be discussed below.
My work, “The Warring States period Gilt Jade Cup with Single Dragon and Attached Handles, Presented by King Xian of Zhou for Longevity,” discusses the fate of the Xia Nine Ding. The Records of the Grand Historian’s account of King Zhao of Qin seizing the Ding is incorrect. During the reign of King Xian of Zhou, the Qin attempt to seize them failed, but the King of Han managed to take them from King Xian of Zhou in exchange for fifteen cartloads of millet.
Amid the historical enigma surrounding the untraceable Xia Nine Ding, the reappearance of the Zhou King’s Nine Ding in Hong Kong powerfully demonstrates that the Zhou Dynasty maintained strict regulations on the form and dimensions of core ritual vessels like the ding. It provides us with direct evidence of the Zhou royal workshop system for ritual vessel production from 3,000 years ago. The return of the archaeologically missing “Zhou King’s Nine Ding” themselves holds significant historical value and contemporary relevance, as is evident.
The analysis in the report “Are the Hong Kong Nine Ding the Zhou King’s Nine Ding?” written by Mr. Xiao Shengkuan, is rigorous and persuasive. Particularly its conclusion: “Post-1977 replication = logically and technically impossible.” I find this part of the proof to be well-supported and convincingly argued.
The report “Are the Hong Kong Nine Ding the Zhou King’s Nine Ding?” provides a new and more profound perspective for understanding the phenomenon of the “Luoyang Ding” and the “Hong Kong Nine Ding(No.2)” having identical dimensions. Starting from artifact appraisal, historical research, and ritual logic, Mr. Xiao proposes a groundbreaking view: the Hong Kong Nine Ding are highly likely to be the archaeologically missing “Zhou King’s Nine Ding” themselves.
This is a surviving relic of the Zhou royal ritual vessel system from three millennia ago. It is precious physical evidence proving the existence of a state-level production standard for ritual vessels in the Zhou Dynasty. It serves as an important archaeological bridge connecting the Hong Kong Nine Ding to the core ritual system of the Zhou royal house. It also provides a highly persuasive material pivot for re-understanding early Zhou history and interpreting the “inquiring about the ding”allusion. The chain of evidence and logical reasoning presented undoubtedly open a new door for solving the mystery of the “Zhou King’s Nine Ding.”
These Nine Ding bear over two hundred inscribed characters, further enhancing their historical value. Entrusted with their interpretation, I hereby present my findings.
Thank you all!
The bronze inscriptions above are all standard phrases from the pre-Qin period: “For the treasured use by sons and grandsons for generations.”
Translate it, looks like this:
Interpretation: Zhōu Wáng Gōng Dū (Zhou King’s Palace Capital)
Code 1 is “Zhōu” (周).
Code 2 is “Wáng” (王).
Code 3 is “Gōng” (宫, palace).
Code 4 is “Dū” (都, capital): Original meaning was a major city containing the ancestral temples of former rulers, later extended to mean the capital city of a state.
<Shuowen Jiezi>: “A place containing the old ancestral temples of former rulers is called Du.” Dexun’s note: A place where the sovereign resides. Otherwise, it is called Yi (邑, town). Radical: 邑 (Yì). Phonetic: 者 (Zhě).
Meaning: “Zhōu Wáng Gōng Dū” – The palaces within the capital city of the Zhou King.
Code 4 does not use the radical 邑, but uses 卩 instead, differing from the dictionary. How to understand this issue?
Originally, the semantic component 卩 (jié) means “resembles those guarding the state using jade tallies (卪), with 者 (zhě) as the phonetic component. Interpreted as the state capital. This inscription enriches dictionary studies.
卩 (jié): An object used in ancient times as a credential for embassies, etc. <Shuowen Jiezi> records: “(卩) is a token of authority. 瑞 (Ruì) means using jade as a token.” Notes on the <Zhou Rites – Dian Rui> state: “瑞 (Ruì) means a token of authority.” In ancient times, there were five jade tokens for state envoys: Zhen Gui, Ya Zhang, Gu Gui, Wan Gui, Yan Gui, all being jade tokens (瑞卪) used by the king’s emissaries. Later, it extended to mean any credential held by an envoy as proof, even if not made of jade, could be called 卪. “Resembles those guarding the state using jade tallies (卪), those guarding cities using horn tallies, gatekeepers using tally tallies (符卪),” those for goods using seal tallies (璽卪), those for roads using banner tallies (旌卪), etc. <Zheng E> mentions: “卩 resembles the shape of a bone tally. Ancient tally tokens (符卩) were used to show trust; half was kept outside, half inside, modeled on the bone tally, hence it was also borrowed for the character for tally token (符卩).” This explains its origin being related to ancient tally tokens used as credentials.
“Resembles those guarding the state using jade tallies (卪)” – in this sense, 卩 takes on the function of the semantic component 邑 (Yì).
Therefore, Code 4 is a newly discovered variant form of the character
“Dū” (都).
Code 5 is not “ten” (十); with a short horizontal and long vertical, it is “Jiǎ” (甲).
Note: Judging from the bronze inscription, it originates from a specific bronze vessel.
Interpretation:
Zhēngyuè jì wàng Jiǎwǔ wáng Zhōu Shī Liàng gōng gé wànnián bǎo yòng, jiā shàng Zhōu Wáng Gōng Dū.
General Meaning of the Inscription:
In the first month, on the day of Jiǎwǔ, during the full moon (the 16th), the King arrived at the Shī Liàng Palace in the Zhou capital. (This bronze vessel) (is for sons and grandsons) to treasure and use for ten thousand years. Combined with the earlier “Zhōu Wáng Gōng Dū.”
Code 1 is “Zhēng” (正, first).
Code 2 is “Yuè” (月, month).
Code 3 is “Jì” (既, already).
Code 4 is “Wàng” (望, full moon).
Code 5 is “Jiǎ” (甲).
Code 6: The form resembles “gè” (個), which doesn’t make sense. Referencing
(Xian Gui, Western Zhou), it is judged to be a variant form of “Wǔ” (午).
Note: The day of the full moon in the first month (i.e., the 16th day of the month), specifically the day of Jiǎwǔ.
Code 7: Superficially looks like “Yù” (玉, jade), but the dot is actually uncleaned residue/dirt. Therefore, it should be the character “Wáng” (王, king).
Code 8 is “Zhōu” (周).
Code 9 is “Shī” (师).
Code 10 is “Liàng” (量).
Code 11 is “Gōng” (宫).
Dexun’s note: “Shī Liàng Gōng” – the name of a palace of the Zhou Dynasty. It could also be understood as the Zhou army/division (Shī, near the capital), measuring (Liàng) the palace (Gōng), possibly for a construction or renovation project.
Code 12 is “Gè” (各), interchanged with “Gé” (格, to arrive, to come).
Code 13 is “Wàn” (万, ten thousand).
Code 14 is “Nián” (年, year).
Code 15 is “Bǎo” (宝, treasure).
Code 16 is “Yòng” (用, use).
Commentary
This inscription records an important royal ceremony from the Western Zhou period, potentially involving military elements, taking place within the royal palace in the capital city, concerning palace construction works and the inscription on the vessel. The royal house declared that these Nine Ding would be “treasured and used for ten thousand years.” The Zhou King’s prayer reflects the expectation of the enduring value of the Nine Ding as stabilizers of the state. It reflects the political and cultural characteristics of the time. The inscriptions on the Nine Ding are precious materials for researching the Western Zhou calendar and chronology.
Author Introduction
Wang Dexun: Born 1950, Han ethnicity. Dean, School of Social Archaeology, Hong Kong Tat Tak University; Staff member, Preparatory Office of Hong Kong Tat Tak International Auction Co., Ltd.; Academician, World Academy of Wisdom Sciences; Researcher (retired), Guizhou Minzu University; Former Director, Southwest Yelang Culture Research Institute; Graduate of Southwest University, double major. Recipient of the First Prize for Social Sciences in Guizhou Province and the Third Prize for Humanities and Social Sciences from the Ministry of Education; Specially Appointed Expert, Guizhou Provincial Research Institute of Culture and History; Senior Advisor, Chinese Committee for the Study of Famous Mountains, Temples, and Monasteries Culture; Member, Xiamen Research Office of Ancient Civilizations; Editorial Board Member, *Research Series on Ancient Civilizations*; Member, Chinese Pre-Qin History Society; Researcher, Guizhou Research Center for I Ching Studies and Chinese Classics; Specially Appointed Expert, Guizhou Provincial Institute of Culture and Art; Advisor, Guizhou Provincial Collectors Association; President, Tongzi County Yelang History and Culture Research Association, Guizhou; Advisor, Guizhou Zhenning Zhuwang Culture Research Association; Special Researcher, Chongqing Bayu Culture Research Institute; Researcher, Liao Studies Research Center, Chinese Society for the History of Wei, Jin, Northern and Southern Dynasties.
